THE-JERSEY COW—THE ECONOMICAL PRODUCER.

Taranaki Daily News, 6 August 1918, Page 2

THE-JERSEY COW—THE ECONOMICAL PRODUCER.

To the EcV.ior. Sir, —The ability of those able Jersey j |' barraekcrs," Messrs I'xeeth and Man-, ford to '"evade and dodge" is as nothiiig compared "with the absolute genius fgri side-stepping and ignoring an issue dis- j played by my Bahotu friend, who lias such an antipathy to seeing his name so often in print and ivhose "pressure of public business" .caused such undue delay in his answer to mine of the 20th ult., although, seeing lie had already read an almost identical letter of mine in the he should most assuredly have been ready with an answer. Xo, Sir; I should say to Mr Wright side-stepping an issue is of no avail in tliis case, and I will just try and:xemind him of a few things that he has evi- j dently forgotten, besides all that he | over knew about Jerseys. In Ilia letter of the 17th "ult., he quoted '"'official" figures,- showing that 10,000 lbs milk, 3.5 test, produces 700 lits dried milk, and. 7,000 lbs milk, 5.0 test, 490 lbs dried' milk. He prophesied that margarine Would drop to Cd per lb; that'-butter would be unsaleable article owing to its high price; that therefore rich milk for dairying is not going to pay, and that owing to the way the new industry is catching on it looks as if the Jersey breeders are going to have a holiday. Sir, I would ask my friend of the unmentionable nfLmo how does tlio compiler of his "official" figures compute that 10,000 lhs milk, 3.5 test, produces 700 lbs dried milk and 7,000 lbs milk, 5.0 test, 490 His dried milk? Does it not depend entirely on the proportion of casein contained in the milk, and is it not a fact that the richer the butter-fat test the higher the casein test, and the greater the amount of solids and moisture retained in the curd ? Why does he limit tie Jersey to> 7,000 lhs milk with a 5.0 ■tost when the average 5.0.R.. for Jerseys of all ages in New Zealand is 403 lbs of butter-fat? How does he purpose I getting hife high prices for dried milk if butter is going to be unsaleable? Am I right in assuming that dried milk is ■in relation to butter much as sugar of milk is to cheese? Do the existing dried milk factories—either here in New Zealand or America—pay out on any hut a butler-fat basis. If not, how is the low testing cow going to heat the high tester? And, finally, what has a sick man thriving on poor milk got to do with the question of dried milk or cheese plus sugar of milk anyway? My friend with the wrong nama says, "I am only acting in defence of my pocket, like the Oaonui Shorthorn supplier," whom he quotes as saving: ' : 1 am wearied carrying these Jerseys on ray back.'' Listen what James Long, auUior of ''British Dairy Farming," "Elements of Dairy Farming," etc, has to say in an article dealing with the production of cheese—and remember that these are the words of a man who is not a Jersey fancier or ban-acker, but an ardent admirer of that grand breed of cattle the Shorthorn. He savs: "At tie great dairy test' at Chicago, 75 cows were tested far fifteen days; they inc-lud-cluded 25 of each of the three important breeds—Jerseys, Guernseys, and Shorthorns. The quantity of milk required to make 1 ]1» of elieese in the easo of the Jersey was S.lllbs; 9.01b in the ease of the Cluern sey, and 11.3 lb in the case of the Shorthorn. The result was that during the fifteen days the Jerseys produced 1451 lb of cheese, the Guernseys lil 30 !b. and the Shorthorns 1077 lb, while the whey was much larger in quantity in the ca-e of tlie .Jerseys than in the Shorthorns. At the experiments at, the station of Geneva, in _\ew York State, which were extended over a considerable lime, large volumes of milk being manipulated from day to day, the average quantity of fat in the milk was 4.5G per cent, while the total solids reached 14 per cent. What was the result? The quantity ef cheese varied from 9.75 lb to 14.2 lib per l-OO Hi of milk, and averaged no 10-s than 12.35 lb. This works out to the somewhat extraordinary figure of 5.09 lb of milk per ]:b of cheese. It was found after careful eramiuation, that the quantity of wate:retained in the cheese was in proportion to the richness of the milk, although Ihore are certain differences that occur where the proem of manufacture is varied. for instance, ilie variation was betivccn 3 2 ]b and <5.30 11> tier 100 lb of milk, the average being 4.7 11). Again, it was found that the quantity of fat, per U> of casein in the milk varied in accord anee with the ri.-liiie-s of the milk. When tlie milk was richest it contained 1.501b Of fat to every lb of casein, hut at the experiments in the west of Fngland : lfili2 the quantify of fat per pound of milk was 1.-5 lb and in the following year l - 20 lb. The remark applies cquallv to the choose: the larger the quantity ni casein the larger the quantity of fait.

"Acain,"—and T v.-mi Id like rcy Rahetu friend tn pay special attention to this—"it appears that there is a orcatpr loss of fi;l. in the manufacture of cheese, whp'the mill.' is poor than when it is rich r total solid,;. Tn t'lie vi.li milk there, is a Ini-n-ev proportion of •-•oli,]-, V .— v-n.,l ;« liie cheese than when the milk is poor. Takinu- the work coiidi'eted at -IS fnctoriis it was fuiiiid that of the total solids ■.if tin; milk employe.!, 50 per cent was recovered in 111:1 kin;; cheese. The fat recovered reached 01 per cent, and the easein ami albumin 75.7 per cent. Tho solids li-sl, consisted chiefly of suifar, the chief pi 'istiineats of ilia whey, wh.ich is mostly cinploved in fecdim; pi«s. The relationship of fat to the whey of cheese produced is shewn very clearly vhen the milk is divided into groups in accordance with its quality. For example, when the fat percentage, varied firm '■'< to TS 1 :. per cciii. Uic fat io.|Jj to the I cheese hut present in the whey reaelii 11.55 per cent, whiie.lhc jveiirbt of choose produced per Kill 11) of milk wan only 0.1-t lb. So the figures vary consistency until we reach the milk of the highest quality—s to 5.5 per cent. Here the proportion of Ihe fat lost in the wiicy was, only six per pent, while the quantity of che'e=e produced per HtO lb of milk was 13:0 lb. What does Ytr Wright think of that? How nbout the cowtester not making whey butter? Mr. T.on<r pops on to say: '"lt will l At once be ■noticed by the oheosemaker and those who are connected with the industry in other ways that the man who , makes cheese on the farm is wise to form his herd net only of deep but of rich I milkers—tho richest he can find—and that lie should spare no pains to exclude inferior cattle and to replace them by tithe best." I j Xo"/. Sir, I have taken n? P. lot cf your : \.-'ual;lc spar?, fcr which T .ppoWsc. but „ t \.n "ijiip'' fiyeres that will convince C c '...'. " v " 1 and should certainly uiftks

my Jow-testing oliiaimpion think. -Xshould eataan it-a favor if—supposing my friend brcakis into print again—he will supply the source of liss"«fficd»l" figures, and explain why he so earefnlly avoided giving us the returns in Ml when quoting lis faiiory figures. He must know that the prouidw of milk required to make a, jpcmnd of cheese is a very necessary factor in determining the economical production of the article- There is bo need for me to pursue, this matter further, but let ma ask Mr Wright—whoso name should have been Mr Wrong—one more question. Can ho quote any (figures to prove that any breed of cattle has ever beaten the Jersey for economical production of either milk, ibrtterfat, casein, or sugar of milk? And in conclusion let me say that he would Ijo well advised to stop trying to carry the Jersey and let her carry him. —-I am, etc.,

IvRAXK'EANKffiD. Stratford, August Ist, 1018. :